Both PC and consoles will use matchmaking, so fundamentally there is no difference besides number of players and hackers. You can even get a kb/m for the consoles...

The PC version will have an extremely small community, which results in long wait times, extreme (even unplayable) lag, many game modes will be empty most of the time, hacks will be abundant, there will be no way to remove them, and avoiding them will be extremely difficult.

The console version will have an extremely large community, which results in far less lag, all game modes populated, hacks are rare and much easier to avoid since there are more players.

Any minor graphics improvements the PC might get, are certainly not worth the horrible experience of console gaming on PC.

Console will have a lot larger playerbase, which means when you connect to listen servers the experience will be better on console. Since the game uses dedis and listen servers it sounds like it may be a crapshoot regarding connection. If connected to dedis on PC you wont have any lag issues, but if you connect to a listen server, well then all bets are off. Hacking on the next-gen consoles will be minimal compared to PS3/360/PC for a while after release. So that's something to keep in mind. The problem with a larger playerbase is you also have a lot more kids and idiots on console.

The playerbase on PC means some of the game modes will more than likely remain unplayed a couple months after release. If you use BO2 as an example the only reasonably populated modes are TDM/DOM/SnD and KC. Hardpoint is dead, HQ is dead, CTF has a pretty small amount of players in the playlist as well. On PC you of course get the accuracy of kb+mouse, better visuals but at the cost of a smaller population. On console you sacrifice controls, visuals and a more mature population.

So I'd decide based on what is most important to you. Also as a side note the kb+mouse support on consoles is pathetic and doesn't remotely replicate the experience of gaming on PC. You can get adapters but all they do is force your kb+mouse to emulate analog input, which is a terrible experience.

Black Ops 2 is laggy period. P2P/Dedis, Console/PC. Doesn't matter. It's just got shitty netcode, like every other Teryarch game. MW2 is much less laggy than BO2 on PC and it is P2P with a fraction of the playerbase. IW is just better at at online MP connectivity and consistency.

There were also 3 separate development teams working on MW3. We have no idea which of them was responsible for the netcode. Could have been IW, SledgeHammer or Raven. IW made one bad COD game and that I believe was due to the loss of like you say a big part of the original dev team. Now they're back to full strength and I am optimistic Ghosts will be a return to form.

I have always liked matchmaking over dedicated servers. i can deal with some lag and what not. if i don't have to deal with getting kicked because i am using the "wrong gun" or the "wrong perk" if it is in the game it should and can be used.

As for pc vs console I like pc because it has much better controls. i like my learning curve to be in game not on the controller.

The servers you speak of are just 'those' servers. Not all dedicated servers are like that at all and that's the good thing about real user dedicated servers because the player has choice and options unlike a pre-made playlist where you have to beg for a certain mode/gametype to be put into the game.

If you go the Xbox route then wait for the Xbox One or if you have an Xbox 360 already there's only a $10 upgrade fee for Ghosts.

Xbox/Consoles: $150+ -- there are options though the legitimacy is debatable that allow for KB/M, but in either case the OEM Controller's are garbage, consider the SCUF Controllers and those with 4-buttons on the bottom.

To show a fair picture, I have built super budget rigs for family and friends and you can build a capable PC for below $500-$600. Even less if you have any parts you can scavenge from PCs you already own (Cousin built one for under $300 using some scavenged parts) . I've got about $1400 into my rig at this point but a lot of it is far from necessary. Like you say it depends a lot on what a person has to spend vs. what they want. OP if you're looking for a build on a budget let me know and I can give you some advice on parts and the like .

I was very deliberate to underline competitive, and what I posted is indeed that, competitive and no compromise but at the same time not CrAzY off the wall silly and there was a reason for everything.

Problem, what often happens, especially in the PC arena, is being outclassed not on your equivalent 'skills' but on the equipment players use. Example, in my case I have a 2560x1440 IPS monitor which clearly is not optimal for strict multiplayer (MP) gaming, but in every other possible way better than HD (1920x1080).

You don't want components to bottleneck one or the other, and most modern 4-core CPU's they won't, but Intel is the clear choice in most uses including gaming. However, the most singularly important component in HD or higher resolutions is your GPU - period. All too often players have an inconvenient GPU Stutter which they mistaken for 'Lag Comp' and at least in FPS and MP you need a solid 120+ FPS; it's a mechanic of most FPS games. Try Draw FPS and see if there are any FPS quivers and if there are then you're stuttering.

You're just telling me things I already know and most PC gamers should know already. However I disagree with the 120+ FPS bit as the target should depend entirely on the maximum hz of your monitor, most play on display with a max of 60hz. If your display is at 60hz your goal should be never to dip down below that number for competitive gameplay. If you're playing on a 120Hz display then your goal should be never to drop below that target. Also the common misconception is DPI is the most important spec for a gaming mouse, what you want is as you say the 1ms polling rates. DPI has nothing to do with accuracy and only effects the speeds at which you can move your mouse cursor most with a high DPI adjust the in-game sensitivity down to compensate for the faster movement provided by a high DPI.

Intel is the favored CPU manufacturer for many gamers and rightfully so, but if you're on a budget you should be seriously considering AMD CPUs as an alternative.

As I said you can build a fully capable gaming rig for $500-$600 + the cost of an OS. Which I forgot to include in my last post, I always forget about the OS xD

[1] ...However I disagree with the 120+ FPS bit as the target should depend entirely on the maximum hz of your monitor, most play on display with a max of 60hz. If your display is at 60hz your goal should be never to dip down below that number for competitive gameplay. If you're playing on a 120Hz display then your goal should be never to drop below that target.

[2] Also the common misconception is DPI is the most important spec for a gaming mouse, what you want is as you say the 1ms polling rates. DPI has nothing to do with accuracy and only effects the speeds at which you can move your mouse cursor most with a high DPI adjust the in-game sensitivity down to compensate for the faster movement provided by a high DPI.

[3] Intel is the favored CPU manufacturer for many gamers and rightfully so, but if you're on a budget you should be seriously considering AMD CPUs as an alternative.

[4] As I said you can build a fully capable gaming rig for $500-$600 + the cost of an OS. Which I forgot to include in my last post, I always forget about the OS xD

I'm not going to argue with you and you're apparently either misinformed or simply don't know.

[1] 120 FPS and higher, it has nothing to do with what you can see nor refresh-rate of your monitor; don't take just my word for it see (or search for yourself)

Plus there are a slew of other similar findings on game mechanics in particular FPS games and higher FPS.

[2] I gave examples of mice with 1K/s (1 ms) sampling and > 3000 DPI, and I'm dead clear on what's a good mouse or not, and worst what's good for me might be horrible for someone else; in prior posts I made the 1ms clear. Ideally I find a dpi that will work on most if not all of my games and then simply adjust the game's (sensitivity) to match what I'm used to. By no means did I say you MUST get an 8,000 dpi mouse; 99% of the players are 3,000 dpi or less.

[3] Gaming, even for the money ... Intel - period. No I don't hate AMD, but they're simply not on par with Intel's at least for gaming PC's.

[4] Folks waste their $500-$600 on junk, better to save or go the Console route than burn $500-$600 on a gaming PC for 'current' releases.

I'm not trying to be a PC snob at all, If you want to play only the Campaign or games that don't have 'gunfights' won/lost in (ms's) then sure get whatever you want. But if all I had was a very tight budget, and only had $500-$600 then I'd purchase the Xbox One and forget PC gaming all together.

Since when does having a deferring opinion from someone mean I'm trying to argue with you? Also you're correct I wasn't aware of that info on the COD engine. Very interesting stuff indeed. Once we factor in things like latency times, etc. Those things honestly aren't going to make a noticeable difference. It certainly would make you feel better but in practice wouldn't make much of a difference online. Now if we're talking about LAN then it could mean a lot more. I wouldn't personally recommend somebody bases their entire PC build solely on how the quake 3 engine handles things. if you're looking to build a PC for gaming chances are that you will be playing a lot more games than just COD games.

I was in complete agreement with you about mice, was just stating the OP shouldn't let all of the high DPI marketing stuff trick him into thinking having a mouse with 8k DPI is going to give him an advantage, it wasn't directed at you. I know Intel has the edge when it comes to gaming but AMD is still a viable option for budget minded gamers.

If you think spending $500-$600 for a build equates to a junk build, IDK what to tell you. I built my rig for $700 originally, it was a starter budget build meant for upgrade-ability and longevity. As I've said at this point I have around $1400 sunk into it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting lower on the scale and working your way up on a capable motherboard.

I would personally never recommend a console experience over PC after I switched over myself. Not for the more hardcore gamers at least. If you purchase lots of games the saving on Steam is baffling. I'm getting off topic though.

You're comparing your now $1,400 build to a before $700 build to an OP suggested $500-$600 build..okay.

My big point is folks that build a cheap PC more often than not regret doing it --- for gaming. You need something for email, etc then everything from your phone to $500-$600 is plenty.

What happens is folks purchase several games and often games like BO2, BF3, etc will all the DLC, etc cost what $100+/ea and to run them and have a semi-miserable time often mistakenly thinking half the other players are cheating because their PC cannot compete. Me (my PC) v/s Me $600 PC would most of the time (my PC) FTW.

I have all of the current consoles at my home, except the new Wii U, and I don't find it that way especially if you have parties at your home. I simply play like garbage using the frigging controller, but there are ways to use a KB/M on a console that I've promised not to mention to the Mods. Playing BO2 on the Xbox to me overall is the caliber of people in MP.

I never suggested anything to the OP, I said if you're on a tight budget you can build a capable PC for somewhere in that area. Yes I am comparing my $700, upgraded to $1400 rig, why? Because it was to prove a point. If someone is on a tight budget when they first build their rig they can later upgrade it when they have the expendable income to do so. That's one of the beauties of gaming on PC. Everyone I know that has a built a cheap PC for gaming have been extremely content and impressed what they can do on a low budget. Mainly because people continue to spread false information about the cost of building a capable PC for gaming. Will you have a better experience with a $1k+ rig? Of course but there is nothing wrong with gaming on a lower spec machine. I have several Steam friends that are running games with Intel integrated graphics or an AMD APU and are completely content with what they have. Just because an experience sounds awful to you doesn't mean it is an awful experience to someone else.

I was a console gamer all my life until February of last year,I had a PS3, 360, Wii this current gen. After about 3 months of gaming on PC I decided I will never go back to having a console as my primary gaming platform. Do I miss anything about consoles? Sure, renting games or playing offline splitscreen with friends was great! I also share your pain regarding controllers though, I'm terrible with them since I have gotten used to kb+mouse. Ya I've researched all the adapter and such that allow you to use kb+mouse on console but everyone I have talked to about them say they just don't compare to the precision of kb+mouse on PC. Mainly because all these adapters do is translate kb+mouse movement to analog movements and you have to deal with any compensations they added specifically for analog thumbsticks, which sounds just awful to me.

Because playing this game at 60 FPS is like moving through molasses v/s >120 or for that matter >200 FPS and no Stutter. Players feel stutter they blame it on 'Lag Comp' ... they see another killing them left and right it then it has to be a cheater. The list goes on, and what's really their core problem is they're attempting to compete against fast, good players and in particular with a good PC. That's why.

Again, playing the Campaign or against bots...go for the cheap PC. However, purchasing the right tool for the job does indeed make a profound difference.

In the list I provided there are indeed cheaper components that will provide the same or negligible differences with the exception of a 'good GPU.' Example, cheaper MOBO's but still IMO LGA 1150, cheaper CPU's but still get an i5 Haswell. Also cheaper is often just that cheaper parts, poorer warranties, and in-place limits e.g. fixed clocked CPU's, PSU's with poorer voltage protection and/or poorer efficiency etc. To a point you get what you pay for. A 'better PC' has a longer shelf life.

How is it logical for someone to base their entire gaming build solely on the limitations of one specific game engine that is by the way over 10 years old? Not to mention if playing online the difference between 60 FPS and 120 or 200 will be negligible once you factor in latency to the servers. If you feel it gives you an advantage, then that's great. But as long as people are happy with a PC that isn't as powerful, who are you to tell them they aren't having an enjoyable experience? Everyone has different standards and arguing about them is largely futile.

What?! I play a ton of games and for just about every single game I can think of and especially the newer games the same rules apply. The differences between 60 FPS and 200 FPS is huge, not subtle, and as I said the latency aka 'Lag Comp' folks blame that over to core issues and in particular their frame Stutter.

It's not that 'I feel' it's an advantage -- it's absolute fact. Forget what 'I' think or feel, watch the video's I linked above and in particular Noobs Guide to Better Aim in Battlefield 4! - YouTube there are indeed many more similar videos, guides, forum content, and quantifiable testing -- search it.

Latency and lag comp are two totally different things, latency applies to anything and everything you do on the internet. It's the delay between you input and the time it takes for it to ping to the server and back. This applies to EVERYTHING. When you go to google.com there is latency involved. Lag comp is actually a direct counter to the difference in latency between players connected to the same server. Regardless, you are dodging my point again. If somebody is enjoying themselves and happy with a lesser system that what you deem necessary, who are you to tell them they're wrong? You don't have that right, period.

I own a data center and you're going to enlighten me about latency, ping and in this case Lag Comp?? I'd say 'most' folks don't know the difference between what they perceive as Lag Comp and Stuttering.

I'm not 'dodging' any point (pointless) thing you're mentioning at all, and if someone is having a grand olde time being pwned needlessly then kudos for them - enjoy. However, the problem is most folks don't understand what the problems are and why they constantly lose gunfights. Most of these people are much better players and have more potential than they realize --- IF they have competitive equipment.

The Consoles are all standardized and other than a really good controller like a Scuf and a nice monitor everything else is more less on par, and yeah their internet and its latency do play a role. Though since the last 'patch' about a month ago or so it's kinda favoring the 'bad' connections with poor (high/inconsistent) pings.

Well then you must have been assuming I didn't know what latency actually was judging by your previous post. I have played on terrible connections, I'm talking under 1mbps DL rates and upwards of 120 ping. I currently play on a much smoother connection, it's not amazing but I'm happy with it. 18mbps DL and 40-60 ping, best I can get in my current area. That being said I personally have never complained about lag comp or anything like that. Has my connection gotten me killed every once in a while? Absolutely, but that's no fault of the game. You're right many people blame all their problems on lag comp, etc. I'm not one of those people.

You seem to think my original intention was to argue with you, it wasn't. I merely wanted to let someone on the fence know they can have a respectable system for a reasonable price if they know where their purchasing priorities should lie. Of course the more you spend, the better performance you're going to get. This doesn't mean if you're gaming on a budget you are instantly at a disadvantage vs. everyone else.

The PC gamers with the upper mid/high end systems are not the majority of PC gamers, and I think that applies doubly so in COD. Only because COD hasn't really required much horsepower for years at this point. With Ghosts that does look to be changing a bit though. As I said I have Steam friends that run on Intel integrated graphics or AMD APUs. They don't get stomped, in fact they are mostly above average players. For Ghosts they plan on upgrading their system with a dedicated GPU, due to the higher requirements. I have a friend on Steam that plays on 640x480 resolution, take that in for a second. He's content playing at 640x480, I find that mind boggling myself. But he runs at the resolution so he can get 60 FPS on his Intel HD 2000. He is not a bad player, he doesn't get "pwned", he doesn't blame lag or make hackusations when he dies. He loves to game on PC. My point is that we all have varying standards and perceptions about what is needed vs what isn't. I was just offering the OP a different POV than your original post is all.

Listen some folks want to hold on to their 'golden nuggets' and keep their advantages to themselves, I don't. Example, a guy I play with constantly complained about 'Laggy Lobbies' when none of us experienced the same phenomenon, and sure there are plenty of 'Laggy Lobbies' especially with the low player counts and frequent foreign v/s domestic mixed lobbies. However after examining his rig the GPU alone stood out and was causing his frame-rates to bounce up and down from >90-<120. So I recommended a new GPU and after a long time, too long, and in preparation for Ghosts he purchased a GTX 760. The guy is now playing a solid 50% better and is kicking himself in his butt for not listening. The Stuttering was his problem and not so much the Lag.

I 'get' most folks have tight budgets and the choices are, in this case, a semi-miserable experience playing on a marginal PC or good on a console once you can use to the frigging controller...or get a damn good rig.

Listen some folks want to hold on to their 'golden nuggets' and keep their advantages to themselves, I don't. Example, a guy I play with constantly complained about 'Laggy Lobbies' when none of us experienced the same phenomenon, and sure there are plenty of 'Laggy Lobbies' especially with the low player counts and frequent foreign v/s domestic mixed lobbies. However after examining his rig the GPU alone stood out and was causing his frame-rates to bounce up and down from >90-<120. So I recommended a new GPU and after a long time, too long, and in preparation for Ghosts he purchased a GTX 760. The guy is now playing a solid 50% better and is kicking himself in his butt for not listening. The Stuttering was his problem and not so much the Lag.

I 'get' most folks have tight budgets and the choices are, in this case, a semi-miserable experience playing on a marginal PC or good on a console once you can use to the frigging controller...or get a damn good rig.

The thing is what sounds like a miserable experience to me, you or someone else, doesn't apply to everyone. "One man's trash is another man's treasure" somewhat applies, I guess. I was helping out a family member build a gaming PC with some scavenged parts from one of my older rigs. I personally wouldn't have wanted to game now with their particular setup but they were ecstatic about it. BTW just out of curiosity was your friend running DOF on high? Assuming you're talking about BO2 that is.

DoF .. no (it was set to low), I went through gamut of settings with him all the way down the line; No AA/FXAA, FoV 65, no Ambient Occlusion, Textures (low-med), etc. He had a single GTX 560 Ti. The Stuttering often occurs with 1GB vRAM GPU's.

Huh, the reason I asked is because before I upgraded to my 7850 I had a 6770 and didn't have any stuttering problems(I hate DOF so it was never set to high, I just know of the issues it has in BO2) Both are 1GB Vram btw. Not to mention the 560 Ti is a better card than the 6770. Wasn't a driver issue or anything either huh? Odd

Once you have 'Butter Smooth' renders there's no going back. Sure DoF and FoV > 80 are known causes of Stutter. Tonight try playing using: Draw FPS = Yes (shows the frame-rate), and a variety of FPS (60, 90, 120 and Unlimited) and compare. The simplest is in Custom games and IF you notice your FPS quivering then you are indeed Stuttering. I also assume you're running in HD (1920x1080).

I notice both motion blurr and stutter a lot, and I hate having an inconvenient stutter when I'm going for the kill and ADS'ing some player head-to-head.

I play at 1600x900 res. Also I always run with draw FPS on and am consistently near 120FPS +/- 3-5 FPS. If I was at 1920x1080 I would have grabbed a 7870 instead, but below full HD the 7850 work marvelously for me (Max settings, 65 FOV to prepare for Ghosts, 4x AA, 16x AF, low DOF because ew).

Pff...sure with 30% less pixels 1GB vRAM might not be an issue, but the vast majority of players now are running in HD and some higher than that - me. Dithering down your resolution to a non-native resolution is a problem by itself; fuzz. Further, as resolutions go higher AA isn't need 'as' much to correct rendering artifacts.

So here we're talking to a degree Apples and Oranges. For Ghosts I strongly recommend a GPU or GPU(s) with 2GB of vRAM or higher and ditto with many newer games depending on your settings and rendering resolutions and in HD.

My monitor's native resolution is 1600x900, so no fuzziness to speak of. Also 1600x900 is HD, just not full HD. I really wanted to grab the 2GB 7850 BUT at the time I didn't quite have the cash for the 2GB version of it. Also as you say the Vram is less of an issue at my res. Ya, I have tried running no AA but it bugs the hell outta me. Those jagged edges without AA are annoying and the blur with FXAA is a big annoyance to me as well. So I run standard MSAA. Like you say the GPU performance depends heavily on the resolution you're gaming at. As a 7850 would start to struggle at 1920x1080 or above but is perfect on my current setup.

As many have said, its up to you. PC advantages are keyboard+mouse which makes the difference in mobility and aim, A LOT.

Consoles on the other hand have a wider community.

I personally cant stand FPS games for consoles because its unnatural for me to aim with an analog. Also if you are willing to test yourself into the competitive side of CoD, on PC you have plenty of ways to do some clan wars and tournaments, and if they really release rent-able servers trust me esport side will be very funny